As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow the set of character escapes for the local part of prefix names is ~.-!$&'()*+,;=:/?#@%_ i.e., the set of URI-legal, non-alphanumerics (path, query and fragment) - link

As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow character sequences of the form "% HEX HEX" in the local part of prefixed names. link

15:31:44 <pgearon> AndyS: first one is almost certain. Less certain about the second, but thinks it is very likely

Andy Seaborne: first one is almost certain. Less certain about the second, but thinks it is very likely←

15:32:35 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow the set of character escapes for the local part of prefix names is ~.-!$&'()*+,;=:/?#@%_ (token: PN_LOCAL); i.e., the set of URI-legal, non-alphanumerics (path, query and fragment) -

PROPOSED: As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow the set of character escapes for the local part of prefix names is ~.-!$&'()*+,;=:/?#@%_ (token: PN_LOCAL); i.e., the set of URI-legal, non-alphanumerics (path, query and fragment) -←

15:34:03 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow the set of character escapes for the local part of prefix names is ~.-!$&'()*+,;=:/?#@%_ i.e., the set of URI-legal, non-alphanumerics (path, query and fragment) -

PROPOSED: As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow the set of character escapes for the local part of prefix names is ~.-!$&'()*+,;=:/?#@%_ i.e., the set of URI-legal, non-alphanumerics (path, query and fragment) -←

15:35:26 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow the set of character escapes for the local part of prefix names is ~.-!$&'()*+,;=:/?#@%_ i.e., the set of URI-legal, non-alphanumerics (path, query and fragment) -

RESOLVED: As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow the set of character escapes for the local part of prefix names is ~.-!$&'()*+,;=:/?#@%_ i.e., the set of URI-legal, non-alphanumerics (path, query and fragment) -←

15:42:40 <AxelPolleres> Paul: reading richard's response, he seems unsatisfied tht someone can obfuscate an update command, however, if someone has permissions to do the update, then it doesn't matter whether this is obfuscated or not.

Paul Gearon: reading richard's response, he seems unsatisfied tht someone can obfuscate an update command, however, if someone has permissions to do the update, then it doesn't matter whether this is obfuscated or not. [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←

15:54:48 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to check with Lee and sandro about CR minimum comments period, and also about standard text we could put into LCs that might NOT go through CR. "this doc has already implementations as follows and might go directly to PR... "

ACTION: Axel to check with Lee and sandro about CR minimum comments period, and also about standard text we could put into LCs that might NOT go through CR. "this doc has already implementations as follows and might go directly to PR... "←

15:54:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-569 - Check with Lee and sandro about CR minimum comments period, and also about standard text we could put into LCs that might NOT go through CR. "this doc has already implementations as follows and might go directly to PR... " [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-12-13].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-569 - Check with Lee and sandro about CR minimum comments period, and also about standard text we could put into LCs that might NOT go through CR. "this doc has already implementations as follows and might go directly to PR... " [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-12-13].←

15:55:44 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: one last point on service description review, re RFC wording of MUST SHOULD and MAIN

Axel Polleres: one last point on service description review, re RFC wording of MUST SHOULD and MAY←